Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25158846›Full record

Trial reportTrials2014

Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Dörthe Seidel, Tim Mathes, Rolf Lefering, Martin Storck, Holger Lawall, Edmund A M Neugebauer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01480362 (Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Clinical Effectiveness of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Wounds When Compared to Standard Wound Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01480362 nacompletednot on this map

Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Clinical Effectiveness of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Wounds When Compared to Standard Wound Therapy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Witten/HerdeckeRan2011 to 2015Enrolled360ConditionsFoot Ulcer, DiabeticArmsNegative Pressure Wound Therapy, Standard Wound Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dörthe SeidelInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health - School of Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str, 200, Building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany. Doerthe.Seidel@uni-wh.de.
Tim Mathes
Rolf Lefering
Martin Storck
Holger Lawall
Edmund A M Neugebauer
Witten/Herdecke University · DEAsklepios · DEStädtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn August 2010, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) decided that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would not be reimbursable in German ambulatory care. This decision was based on reports from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), which concluded that there is no convincing evidence in favor of NPWT. The aim of this diabetic foot study (DiaFu study) is to evaluate whether the clinical, safety and economic results of NPWT are superior to the results of standard wound treatment. METHODS/

designThe DiaFu study is designed as a national, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical superiority trial with a special focus on outpatient care in Germany. Competent patients in inpatient and outpatient care suffering from a chronic diabetic foot wound for a minimum of four weeks may be included in the study. The trial evaluates the treatment outcome of the application of a technical medical device which is based on the principle of NPWT (intervention group) in comparison to standard moist wound therapy (control group). All treatment systems used in the intervention group bear the symbol of free trade capacity in the European Union (CE mark) and will be operated within normal conditions of clinical routine and according to manufacturer's instructions. Primary endpoints are the time to complete wound healing and the rate of wound healing achieved in each group within the maximum study treatment time of 16 weeks. Primary endpoints will be confirmed by blinded assessment of wound photographs. DISCUSSION: The DiaFu study will provide solid evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of NPWT until 31 December 2014, the date when G-BA plans to decide on future reimbursement of NPWT in both ambulatory and in-hospital care. The study is designed to comply with all quality requirements of G-BA and IQWiG and will contribute to evidence-based wound care in Germany. The study has been initiated by the statutory health insurance companies in Germany and is co-funded by two manufacturers of NPWT systems.

trial registrationClinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT01480362 (date of registration: 23 November 2011).German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00003347 (date of registration: 22 November 2011).

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyChronic DiseaseDiabetic FootHumansWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID25158846
PMCPMC4156638
OpenAlexW2089717174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.